Monday, March 13, 2017

An Open Letter to the FOP Membership from Candidate Kevin Graham in Response to Dean Angelo’s Demands for a Public Debate.

From:Blue
Voice Candidate Kevin Graham

Dear Fellow FOP Members,

It has come to my attention that President Dean
Angelo is on social media making demands for a public debate.

I have received no notification from the Angelo
for such an event, no letter, no email, nor any phone call. Nor have I received
any stipulations on how, when, or where such an event would take place. This is
strange, since my phone number and contact information are easily available to
Angelo. Why would he not simply call me and ask?

Why Angelo would be spreading this demand around
social media two weeks before the runoff election is something members can
determine for themselves, but the word “desperation” is hard to avoid in
considering the reason. Certainly my fellow Blue Voice slate members and I have
always welcomed debating the issues and releasing our platform.

Indeed, our platform is on our website and on
our blog, and we have spoken at every roll call in the city throughout the last
few months in our effort to get our message to the members. We are, and always
have been, an open book.

I also find it somewhat strange, but for another
reason, that Angelo is calling for debate at this particular time. It was once
common practice at the FOP for the current president to allow candidates five
minutes during a regular membership meeting to address members. Angelo never
allowed this during the current regular election, depriving four other
candidates of the opportunity to speak directly to the members. Now, knowing
that the vast majority of members voted against him in the recent election, he
wants to debate.

I think that it is also important to recall that
Angelo was challenged by then candidate Bill Dougherty to a debate in the last election,
but Angelo refused.

If Angelo is making demands for a debate merely
to vilify our intentions and our actions, it is a sad, weak, and pathetic tactic,
indicative not only of his desperation, but also of the usual kind of tactics
employed by him in the last three years, tactics that have driven this Lodge
into the ground.

Certainly one question that will come up during
a debate, should one take place, is a question Angelo has refused to answer
throughout his entire administration and his current campaign, a question that
comes up at every roll call during the campaign: How was it that a man who
could work as president of the FOP, collecting some $60,000 in disability
payments, how was it that he could not hold a light-duty position with the
department?

In other words, is the current president of our
Lodge a medical abuser?

But I digress.

We certainly welcome a debate so long as the
terms are fair. We are, however, not interested in a continuation of the dog
and pony show Angelo’s election committee has performed during the current
campaign, imposing unfair rules and employed shady tactics in an obvious effort
to bolster support for Angelo rather than run a fair election.

We anxiously await a serious, fair proposal for
a debate and will respond promptly.